Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does partially by disclosing the response contents (settings, best price so far, last stop placed, a stop-out note), which substitutes for the missing output schema. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether a wallet scope is required by default, or anything about result size or ordering.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the scope-widening flag is stated last where it belongs. The first sentence is a verbless noun phrase that reads like a field list rather than a tool action, which slightly blurs the opening.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description does useful work by describing the returned fields, but it omits that this is a read operation, how a "managed exit" relates to a Hyperliquid position, and what the default (non-includeEnded) result set is scoped to.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 50%: walletId is documented in the schema as "Required for vault-scoped keys" and includeEnded is undocumented there, but the description supplies its meaning (finished exits are included only when true, so the default excludes them). walletId's scoping behavior is left entirely to the schema, so the description compensates for roughly half the gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the resource ("trailing and time stops FortFi manages") and enumerates the fields returned, so an agent can infer this enumerates managed exits. But it never uses a listing verb and never mentions Hyperliquid or the relationship to siblings set_hyperliquid_managed_exit and cancel_hyperliquid_managed_exit, so the purpose is inferred rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The only usage guidance is parameter-level: "includeEnded=true adds finished ones", which tells the agent how to widen scope but not when to reach for this tool versus set_hyperliquid_managed_exit or cancel_hyperliquid_managed_exit. No prerequisites, no when-not-to-use, no mention of what the default scope (active-only) implies.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.